This article proposes the multilevel model to draw how corporate social responsibility (CSR) can increase pro-environmental behaviors and employs green identity as the mediator based on cognitive consistency theory. This article employs the multilevel model to test the theoretical framework using 400 employees from 100 different workgroups in the clean energy technology businesses of Greater China. The findings revealed that when an employee perceived more individual-level CSR at the initial time (Time 1) would increase more individual-level green self-categorization (GSC), green affective commitment (GAC), and green self-esteem (GSE), which consequently increased pro-environmental behaviors (PBs) at the individual level and work-unit level. This finding suggests that managers not only must build individual-level perceived CSR of employees but must also foster work-unit-level (atmosphere) CSR within a group to increase work-unit-level GI, which consequently can increase PBs.
LangeF. Behavioral paradigms for studying pro-environmental behavior: a systematic review. Behav Res Methods2022; 55: 1–23.
2.
LinMTZhuDLiuC,et al.A systematic review of empirical studies of pro-environmental behavior in hospitality and tourism contexts. Int J Contemp Hosp Manage2022; 34: 3982–4006.
3.
HongxinWKhanMAZhenqiangJ,et al.Unleashing the role of CSR and employees’ pro-environmental behavior for organizational success: the role of connectedness to nature. 2022.
4.
GuanXAhmadNSialMS,et al.CSR and organizational performance: the role of pro-environmental behavior and personal values. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manage2022; 30: 677–694.
5.
LuoHQuX. Impact of environmental CSR on firm’s environmental performance, mediating role of corporate image and pro-environmental behavior. Curr Psychol2023: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04231-3
BatoolKZhen-YuZUl-DurarS. Nexus between energy poverty and technological innovations: a pathway for addressing energy sustainability. Front Environ Sci2022: 987. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.888080
8.
PearceJHuangSSDowlingRK,et al.Effects of social and personal norms, and connectedness to nature, on pro-environmental behavior: a study of Western Australian protected area visitors. Tour Manage Perspect2022; 42: 100966.
9.
UrenHVRobertsLDDzidicPL,et al.High-status pro-environmental behaviors: costly, effortful, and visible. Environ Behav2021; 53: 455–484.
10.
UcarGKMalatyalıMKPlanalıGÖ,et al.Personality and pro-environmental engagements: the role of the dark triad, the light triad, and value orientations. Pers Individ Dif2023; 203: 112036.
11.
AliQMNisarQAAbidinRZu, et al.Greening the workforce in higher educational institutions: the pursuance of environmental performance. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19888-3
12.
FarrukhMAnsariNRazaA,et al.Fostering employee's pro-environmental behavior through green transformational leadership, green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 179: 121643.
13.
LammETosti-KharasJKingCE. Empowering employee sustainability: perceived organizational support toward the environment. J Bus Ethics2015; 128: 207–220.
14.
LeePSSungYHWuCC,et al.Using episodic future thinking to pre-experience climate change increases pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav2020; 52: 60–81.
15.
RayTNFranzSAJarrettNL,et al.Nature enhanced meditation: effects on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav 2021; 53: 864–890.
16.
WhitburnJ.LinklaterW. L.MilfontT. L. (2018). Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environ Behav, 51, 787–810.
17.
RobertsonJLBarlingJ. Introduction. In: RobertsonJLBarlingJ (eds) The psychology of green organizations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.3–11.
CaiXSongX. Towards sustainable environment: unleashing the mechanism between green finance and corporate social responsibility. Energy Environ2022; 0. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X221133258
20.
LiQRuanWSunT,et al.Corporate governance and corporate environmental investments: evidence from China. Energy Environ2020; 31: 923–942.
21.
TurkerD. Measuring corporate social responsibility: a scale development study. J Bus Ethics2009; 85: 411–427.
22.
KhuongNVAnhLHT. The nexus between corporate social responsibility and firm value: the moderating role of life-cycle stages. Soc Responsib J, Vol. ahead-of-print (No. ahead-of-print)2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2021-0370
23.
KhuongNVRahmanAAAMeeroA,et al.The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure and accounting comparability on earnings persistence. Sustainability2022; 14: 2752.
24.
HuangSYBYuC-CLeeY-S. How to promote the agricultural company through environmental social responsibility to achieve sustainable production?Front Environ Sci2022; 9: 770783.
25.
ThuyHXKhuongNVAnhLHT,et al.Effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility in Vietnam: state-ownership as the moderating role. J Financ Rep Account, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print.)2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-10-2021-0367
26.
ThuyCTMKhuongNVCanhNT,et al.The mediating effect of stock price crash risk on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and cost of equity moderated by state ownership: moderated-mediation analysis. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manage 2022; 29: 1384-1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2276
27.
HuangSYBLeeS-CLeeY-S. Constructing an adoption model of proactive environmental strategy: a novel quantitative method of the multi-level growth curve model. Mathematics2021; 9: 1962.
28.
TajfelH. Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In: TajfelH (ed) In diferentiation between social groups: studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press, 1978, pp.61–76.
29.
BrubakerRCooperF. Beyond “identity”. Theory Soc2000; 29: 1–47.
30.
EllemersNKortekaasPOuwerkerkJW. Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. Eur J Soc Psychol1999; 29: 371–389.
31.
BergamiMBagozziRP. Self-categorization, affective commitment, and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. Br J Soc Psychol2000; 39: 555–577.
32.
AllenNJMeyerJP. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:an examination of construct validity. J Appl Psychol1996; 49: 252–276.
33.
HoggMA. HardieE.A. Prototypicality, conformity and depersonalized attraction: a self-categorization analysis of group cohesiveness. Br J Soc Psychol1992; 31: 41–56.
34.
EpitropakiO. 7Leadership And followership identity processes: a multilevel review. Leadersh Q2017; 28: 104–129.
35.
FrançoisABayleEGondJ-P. A multilevel analysis of implicit and explicit CSR in French and UK professional sport. Eur Sport Manage Q2019; 19: 15–37.
36.
JonesDAWillnessCRGlavasA. When corporate social responsibility (CSR) meets organizational psychology: new frontiers in micro-CSR research, and fulfilling a quid pro quo through multilevel insights. Front Psychol2017; 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
37.
SimonHA. Information-processing theory of human problem solving. Handb Learn Cognit Processes1978; 5: 271–295.
38.
FarooqORuppDFarooqM. The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsi- bility influence organizational identification and multifoci out- comes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Acad Manage J2017; 60: 954–985.
39.
GlavasAGodwinLN. Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. J Bus Ethics2013; 114: 15–27.
40.
KruglanskiAWJaskoKMilyavskyM,et al.Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: a paradigm reconsidered. Psychol Inq2018; 29: 45–59.
41.
BrammerSHeHMellahiK. Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: the moderating impact of corporate ability. Group Organ Manage2014; 40: 323–352.
42.
De RoeckKEl AkremiASwaenV. Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification?J Manage Stud2016; 53: 1141–1168.
43.
BanduraA. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986.
44.
VlachosPAPanagopoulosNGRappAA. Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: a multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. J Organ Behav2014; 35: 990–1017.
45.
BoiralO. Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. J Bus Ethics2009; 87: 221–236.
46.
MaelFAshforthBE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identi- fication. J Organ Behav1992; 13: 103–123.
47.
PailléPRaineriN. Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and employees eco-initiatives: The influence of perceived organizational support and psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Research2015; 68(11): 2404–2411.
48.
LeeC-JHuangSYB. A moderated mediation examination of Kahn’s theory in the development of new product performance: cross-level moderating role of open discussion of conflict. Chin Manage Stud2019; 13: 603–615.
49.
HuangSYBLeeC-J. Predicting continuance intention to fintech chatbot. Comput Human Behav2022; 129: 107027.
50.
PodsakoffPMMackenzieSBLeeJY, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology2003; 88(5): 879.
51.
JamesLRDemareeRGWolfG. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology1984; 69(1): 85.
52.
TianQLiuYFanJ. The effects of external stakeholder pressure and ethical leadership on corporate social responsibility in China. J Manage Organ2015; 21: 388–410.
53.
GeldhofJPreacherKJZyphurMJ. Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychol Methods2014; 19: 72–91.
54.
HoffmanL. Longitudinal analysis: Modeling within-person fluctuation and change. New York: NY: Routledge, 2015.
55.
BliesePD. Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: KleinKJKozlowskiSWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000, pp.349–381.
56.
FornellCLackerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50.
57.
BarrDJLevyRScheppersC,et al.Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang2013; 68: 255–278.
58.
BaronRMKennyDA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1986; 51(6): 1173.
59.
AguinisHGlavasA. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. J Manage2012; 38: 932–968.
60.
Arslan-AyaydinÖThewissenJ. The financial reward for environmental performance in the energy sector. Energy Environ2016; 27: 389–413.
61.
HuHChangC-PDongM,et al.Does environmental information disclosure affect the performance of energy-intensive firms’ borrowing ability? Evidence from China. Energy Environ2018; 29: 685–705.
62.
XuX-LChenHH. Exploring the relationships between environmental management and financial sustainability in the energy industry: linear and nonlinear effects. Energy Environ2020; 31: 1281–1300
